- This topic has 11 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by mark lewandowski.
-
AuthorPosts
-
19/09/2014 at 21:57 #8863mark lewandowskiParticipant
Hi all. Thinking about doing the ’73 Arab-Israeli War at the tactical level. Bases as squads/heavy weapons. 1 tank = 1, 2 or 3 tanks. I have Fire and Fury’s Battlefront WWII,
which has modern stats online. But, its not played much. Is there something “wrong” with it? Any other rulesets that you would recommend? I know that many rather play
this war in microarmor, but I like using small unit tactics. Similarly, I feel pure “skirmish” to be too small for me. Any thoughts are welcome. Thanks!
19/09/2014 at 23:58 #8875Ivan SorensenParticipantModern rules don’t tend to do “1 base = 1 squad” that much it seems. I was going to say Command Decision or Spearhead but they’re both “1 base = 1 platoon”. Command Decision is quite detailed though, so it might satisfy in any event. If you squint a bit, I think it’d probably do okay.
I’ve rarely heard people say bad things about the Battlefront game. Just seems to have slipped from the public eye.
20/09/2014 at 02:15 #8892shelldrakeParticipantI am not a fan of the rules, but there is a Flames of War variant for the ’67 conflict that could be used for ’73 maybe? http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4148
20/09/2014 at 03:00 #8894kyoteblueParticipantFOW Fate of a Nation AIW rules for 1967 can be updated but it would be kind of a pain…If you throw out some of the silly objective and tournament rules the FOW engine can be and is fun and fast.
26/09/2014 at 15:58 #9481jef croucherParticipantMark
i had a similar problem for my Cold War plans. I like Force on Force but it was too low level for me, likewise all other rules I looked at were tank-obsessed. Eventually, I stumbled on FUBAR which, with some amendments for larger games and extras like artillery, plays brilliantly. Have a look here
http://jefslittlewinki.pbworks.com/w/page/80267060/Cold%20War
for my take on FUBAR. It might be the sort of thing you are after. We are playing a game tomorrow to test out some of the funky new models I’ve just painted, so there may be a few amendments down the line.
regards, Jef.
http://jefslittlewinki.pbworks.com/w/page/67177157/FrontPage
28/09/2014 at 00:20 #9552Ivan SorensenParticipantMark i had a similar problem for my Cold War plans. I like Force on Force but it was too low level for me, likewise all other rules I looked at were tank-obsessed. Eventually, I stumbled on FUBAR which, with some amendments for larger games and extras like artillery, plays brilliantly. Have a look here http://jefslittlewinki.pbworks.com/w/page/80267060/Cold%20War for my take on FUBAR. It might be the sort of thing you are after. We are playing a game tomorrow to test out some of the funky new models I’ve just painted, so there may be a few amendments down the line. regards, Jef.
You know, if you’re in the market for some platoon level infantry action that is focused on the grunts with vehicles in support, I did write one of those *cough* No end in sight *cough*
🙂
30/09/2014 at 21:09 #9801jef croucherParticipantI would have a look if I was in the market for platoon-level games – but I wasn’t! FUBAR was just so simple to modify into what I wanted.
Good luck with NEIS, though!
http://jefslittlewinki.pbworks.com/w/page/67177157/FrontPage
30/09/2014 at 21:21 #9802Ivan SorensenParticipantNot to worry 🙂 And I’m sure FUBAR will serve you very well.
30/09/2014 at 21:35 #9804mark lewandowskiParticipantJef-
Thanks! Interesting stuff.
30/09/2014 at 21:46 #9805kyoteblueParticipantLet us know how it goes Mark.
01/10/2014 at 20:17 #9876jef croucherParticipantYes, Mark please do. I wouldn’t mind having a go at this (probably fuelled by the Airfix Mirage & Mig dogfight double!) but I would lean towards 1967. Mind you, that’s because I want an excuse to make an Ouragan! Interested to hear what rules you decide on.
http://jefslittlewinki.pbworks.com/w/page/67177157/FrontPage
02/10/2014 at 16:46 #9956mark lewandowskiParticipantWill do!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.